Non-citizen activists in the United States face increasing legal uncertainties when exercising their right to free speech, especially under the Trump administration, according to Mary Holper, director of the Immigration Clinic and a clinical professor at Boston College Law School.
“’How are you supposed to know what you can and can’t do?'” Holper said. “When Rümeysa Öztürk wrote an op-ed in the Tufts newspaper last year, how was she supposed to know that it would cause the secretary of state to believe that it would have serious foreign policy consequences here in the United States?”
Holper spoke Thursday afternoon at an event hosted by BC Law School, in partnership with the National Lawyers Guild at BC and the South Asian Law Students Association. Her talk focused on the intersection of immigration law and First Amendment rights, particularly in cases where non-citizen activists have faced legal repercussions for their political expression.
She cited recent examples—including Mahmoud Khalil and Jeanette Vizguerra, who were detained and threatened with deportation due to their political speech—and explained how jurisdictional maneuvering is often used to undermine due process for non-citizen activists.
“The strategy is to move someone to Louisiana, so that there will be an unfriendly venue in the district court in Louisiana,” Holper said. “If they get shipped off to Louisiana and have to file there, then that means the government is more likely to win.”
According to Holper, certain legal provisions allow for the deportation of non-citizens if the secretary of state deems their activities harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests. She said the provision’s vagueness is framed as a constitutional paradox, leaving non-citizens unsure whether their speech might result in deportation.
“This is a problem in the law, called a statute that is void-for-vagueness,” Holper said. “The grounds of deportation are deliberately vague. It’s whatever the secretary of state decides is a compelling foreign policy interest, which of course, can change.”
This is ironic, as President Donald Trump’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, had previously ruled this provision as unconstitutional during her tenure as a district court judge, according to Holper.
“The sibling rivalry must be amazing,” Holper said. “Trump creates this fabulous ground of deportability, and yet his sister says from the grave, ‘No, that’s unconstitutional, you can’t do that.'”
Beyond the legal implications, Holper highlighted how these cases create a silencing effect beyond the courtroom, preventing victims from exercising free speech.
Holper shared the story of one of her immigration clients who wanted to criticize the Internal Revenue Service’s policies that allowed the sharing of taxpayer addresses with immigration authorities but ultimately chose to stay silent out of fear of potential retaliation from immigration authorities.
Holper advised others to also consider their situation carefully before speaking out.
“Don’t speak unless you’re willing to risk what these activists have risked,” Holper said. “No one wants to be sent to a jail in Louisiana—the conditions there are horrible. Take down all your social media posts, have a burner phone when you travel in and out of the country, because the consequences are what we saw happening to Rümeysa Öztürk.”
Despite these challenges, Holper expressed hope in the growing public opposition to these deportation cases. She referenced attending a recent protest on Boston Common, where demonstrators held signs reading, “We Still Have Free Speech Rights.”
Holper noted that questions surrounding free speech rights for non-citizens are actively being discussed in academic circles as well.
“An immigration law professor at [the University of Nevada, Las Vegas] responded to someone who said, ‘You have no First Amendment rights if you’re not a citizen,’ Holper said. “He joked, ‘OK, I guess I’ll have to post my birth certificate before writing a blog post.’ Everyone has free speech rights, but for non-citizens, the consequences are just so hard right now.”
Reflecting on the broader implications of these social challenges and legal strategies, Holper said ultimately, the government often wins either way.
“They have accomplished the suppression of speech by making people afraid to speak,” Holper said. “That’s pretty much the reality that we’re in right now.”
Leave a Reply